Hmmm – you want a response to David Harsanyi – OK – Lets see what comes out of this and what our readers think of these responses.

Dear Mr. Harsanyi:

First, as a conservative, I must say, you really sound like a Democrat. What is the difference between the democrats and republicans today, I mean other then the democrats don’t want you richer then they are and the republicans don’t want you having any more fun than they do? Your article is lopsided and out of touch with reality – especially when being espoused from a self proclaimed conservative. Maybe looking up the word and understanding what it means is in order.

You wrote:
What are we to make of the Republican Party’s future when libertarian congressman, Ron Paul, wins the presidential straw poll at the well-attended Conservative Political Action Conference last week?

In Response:
You should make the facts stand out that people in this country are no longer willing to take the standard rhetoric from the so called conservatives in the Republican Party. People are not blind and now they are starting to see how disastrous the party has been all these years.

You wrote:
Is the GOP about to transform into the party of the gold standard?

In Response:
No, that would mean that people in the party actually understood things like Austrian Economics over the current governmental use of Keynes Economics. To claim that the republicans in power actually know anything about the real world economics and how it works instead of the dream they seem to live in, would be giving them too much credit.

You wrote:
Let’s for a moment forget Paul (and how I wish this could be a permanent condition, considering the congressman is neither a serious politician, nor — and I can’t stress this enough — a serious thinker.)

In response:
Now here is a perfect example of how you sound like a democrat. You try to elicit emotional responses from the reader that go against the true conservative message. Coming from a conservative I am rather surprised by this, coming from a neocon – it doesn’t surprise me at all. So which are you?

I find it hard to believe that you are saying Ron does not think or is not a serious thinker. Every time he presents something it is clear, concise, logical manner with measurable data from the governments own statistics. They are facts that can be looked up and easily verified. That type of research is coming from a non-thinker? You have to be kidding me.
Name calling, emotional spoon feeding etc are all gifts to human kind by people that desire handout instead of working for something. They are designed for the free loader in society who does not want to take responsibility for his actions and you are feeding right into their ploy. You aught to get your facts straight before going off the deep end like this, such actions will only hurt the conservative movement you proclaim to support.

You wrote:
Libertarianism offers conservatives — many of them new to political activism — an earnest ideological alternative to the process-heavy politics that dominates Washington.

In response:
Everyone is a Libertarian deep down inside, they just don’t recognize it. These ideologies you speak of are NOT new and are NOT an alternative. They were started by our forefathers and the government was created with them in mind. The problem is NOT with the Libertarian ideologies its with the bastardization of those ideologies over the years by the government slowly usurping power away from the people.

You wrote:
It allows Republicans to cleanse themselves of the GOP’s failure to deliver on promises of smaller government and fiscal restraint.

In response:
Republicans will never do this. Republicans are like democrats, they are centrists wanting the middle of the road solution to appease capitalists as well as the lazy. Republicans have done nothing but increase the size of government on a continual basis since Lincoln.

You wrote:
None of which is new. The 1964 Barry Goldwater would by many measures be considered a libertarian today. The National Review constructed a “fusionist” effort to bring the parties together. Ronald Reagan explained to Reason magazine back in 1975 that “the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.”

In response:
Ronald Reagan was only smart enough to try to suck unsuspecting Libertarians into the Republican Party so that he could move forward with his big government agenda. Or, are you saying the government shrank under Reagan – HAH. Just because he espoused Libertarian rhetoric does not make him a Libertarian. He wanted to keep the two party system in tact so he used what Libertarians wanted to hear to suck them in.

You wrote:
Two sticking points preventing this fling from turning into something more serious have been social issues and war. Has anything changed to alter the dynamics of the relationship? Probably not.

In response:
The very thought that you think Ron Paul’s stance on war and social issues is NOT any change from what we have today indicates you do not understand anything he is saying. The idea that you think people waking up and seeing what is going on and doing something about it is not dynamic shows how little you pay attention to what is going on as you continue to live in your fantasy land..

You wrote:
Patrick Buchanan recently claimed that the GOP was showing signs of turning away from its recent foreign policy positions. The focus of policy may have changed, and perhaps more reluctance in nation-building, but polls pretty clearly illustrate Republicans still believe in a robust and pro-active national defense.

In response:
There is a big difference in national defense to protect our borders and nation building across the world. How you try to compare the two makes no sense here. Just what is the point of this paragraph in conjuncture with the rest of the article?

You wrote:
Social issues are far more complex — and they always have been, despite caricatures. But the reality is that most of the cultural issues that divide Americans have been mired in political stalemates. You can debate abortion all day long; policy won’t be changing.

In response:
The only reason that these are even issues is because the government gets involved with them by created some stupid law or regulation to try and control or manipulate the population. You cannot legislate morally. If government got out of the moral legislation business policy would change. Your support of such atrocities speaks volumes of where you stand as a “conservative”.

You wrote:
Economics, on the other hand, touches almost everything in a tangible way. That, and one of the most aggressive left-wing economic agendas in American history, makes the libertarian fiscal message seductive.

In response:
There is nothing seductive about common sense. Of course, being a centrist like your democrat friends, you wouldn’t admit to such a thing. You say their agendas are left wing and fight against them, but your agendas are just as much right wing. The only difference between the two is that the democrats don’t want you to be richer than they are and you don’t want anyone to have any more fun than you do.

You wrote:
Does that mean we need Paul?

In response:
Yes and no – if there is no other person like him then YES. If there are other people like him then NO – others who think and work like he does will suffice and do just as good a job as he can.

You wrote:
“Congressman Paul is committed to bringing the conservative movement back to its traditional platform of limited government, balanced budgets and a foreign policy of non-intervention,” claims Paul’s spokesman, Jesse Benton.

In response:
And what is wrong with this? By bring the size of government down and decreasing their interference within our daily lives only increases our freedoms. You find this to be a bad thing? What now that I question it you true colors are shining through and you are afraid to admit I might be right?

You wrote:
If only it stopped there. Paul isn’t a traditional conservative. His obsession with long-decided monetary policy and isolationism are not his only half-baked crusades. Paul’s newsletters of the ’80s and ’90s were filled with anti-Semitic and racist rants, proving his slumming in the ugliest corners of conspiracy land today is no mistake.

In response:
You need to go back and read those letters again. You obviously didn’t read the same ones I did. Oh wait, I forgot, you have an agenda to control people just like the democrats. So much for you being a conservative and standing up for the individual’s rights. They were NOT filled with any sort of racist rants. They were about a person having the right to control what is his. If you think a person should not have control over what he owns, why do you even bother to consider yourself a conservative? Maybe I should come to your house and use it, and then when you throw me out I should get the government and media to say you are a racist for kicking me out.

You wrote:
Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Paul is that thousands of intellectually curious young people will have read his silly books, including “End the Fed,” as serious manifestos. Though you wouldn’t know listening to Paul or reading his words, libertarians do have genuine ideas that conservatives might embrace.

In response:
Your lack of understanding in economics must lead you to criticize that which you cannot comprehend. Go back to school. Anyone who thinks you continue to fund something with nothing but credit needs an education in bankruptcy. If you believe that he is so wrong – why don’t you give me 20 billion dollars out of the goodness of your heart. Don’t worry about it – just take out a loan and have your family pay for it across the next few millennia.

You wrote:
A serious libertarian, David Boaz at the Cato Institute, found that 14 percent of American voters could be classified as libertarian. “Other surveys,” he points out, “find a larger number of people who hold views that are neither consistently liberal nor conservative but are best described as libertarian.”

In response:
This is good. Maybe now those people will actually vote their conscience like the people did at the straw pool and we will get someone like Ron Paul elected into office and save this country. At least they know what is right, unlike you who will continue to spew at the mouth that we should vote for big government people instead of holding them accountable for their actions.

You wrote:
Since the two top concerns at CPAC were “reducing size of federal government” (35 percent) followed by “reducing government spending,” it is obvious the message of individual freedom and small government has resonance. But accepting Ron Paul as the leader of this — or, actually, any — charge is a mistake for both parties.

In response:
Here you succinctly let your colors fly in the wind. You flat out say that no one should be in office that will bring us back to liberty and freedom for our citizenry. Explain to your readers how exactly letting government control their every move is a good thing. Maybe I am wrong, all this time I thought you believed you were a conservative but here, you prove you are a socialist.

I attribute the many newsletters (to say it was a “slip of the tongue (or keyboard)” is nonsense) to him because the newsletters were his. That is indisputable fact not a literary trick.

“But just because you don’t type the phrase “Paul is a racist,” and instead link to other articles making those claims, doesn’t excuse your responsibility to those claims, since your name is attached (via your byline).”

I link to investigations because others have done the heavy lifting on the issue. If I happen to mention Watergate in a column, I have no journalistic responsibility to re-open the case. Nor do I have any such responsibility when I mention Ron Paul’s newsletters.

I too am in favor of a strong national defense, but coupled with a strict non-interventionist policy. Sweden and Switzerland have the 1st and 4th most competitive economies in the world, largely due to their foreign policy. Even though the U.S. sits at number 3, that is most likely due to the fact that we are a consumer society. If we matched our foreign policy to the aforementioned nations’, we could easily be atop the world, economically speaking.

As for your continued denial of accusations that you call Ron Paul a racist or anti-semite is a neat literary trick. While avoiding the actual phrase “Ron Paul is a racist and anti-semite,” you imply that very fact by attributing the newsletters containing racist and anti-semitic speech specifically to Ron Paul. Yes, Paul himself has come forward and said it was unfortunate these newsletters exist; even if all of the words were not his, he is responsible because his name is attached. But just because you don’t type the phrase “Paul is a racist,” and instead link to other articles making those claims, doesn’t excuse your responsibility to those claims, since your name is attached (via your byline).

Just saying, everyone has a slip of the tongue (or keyboard) now and then, but it doesn’t make their ideas any less viable.